Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihomingdevelopment

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Charters are not algorithms, and Area Directors are normally
willing to exercise common sense when a WG diverges in a
rational way from its charter. Please don't use the words in
the charter as yet another excuse for delaying output from
this WG. I have no problem with calling it 'recommendations',
'thoughts' or 'vague ideas'. The value is in the contents,
not the title.

   Brian

Michel Py wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I'm sure we don't need a recharter to downgrade the
> > requirements deliverable to an Informational.
> 
> I must be missing something. This is what the charter says:
> 
> > SEP 01 Submit requirements ID to IESG for publication as
> > Informational RFC.
> 
> And it has been used as an excuse for over a year to do nothing. What is
> the difference with what you are proposing?
> 
> What I am talking about is removing the word "requirements". If
> requirements are optional, they are not requirements. Removing
> pseudo-normative language is a step in the right direction, but is not
> enough, as people will endlessly argue that if there is a requirement
> document that says "we must not do this" it will be almost as good as
> "we MUST NOT do this" and be enough to block any solution.
> 
> Call it "recommendations", "guidelines", "framework" or come up with a
> better term but not "requirements".
> 
> Michel.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland